92 Mr._ Cumberland’s Descriptions of 
by immersing it in dilute muriatic acid. Fig. 8 is a side view; 
Fig. 9 the upper part; Fig. 10 the lower, where the stem, if it had 
one, must have been attached. Fig. 11 the natural size. None of 
the joints of the arms are to be seen in this specimen, but one 
which I have in my own collection, and which I believe to be of 
the same species, exhibits part of three arms which ramify in the 
manner usual with pentacrini. This specimen is however too 
much weather-worn to be engraved. 
Plate 4, Fig. 12 
Represents a specimen on which are portions of the upper parts 
of two pentacrini of a scarce species, one of them having a part of 
the stem. This was also found in the magnesian sandstone at 
Clevedon Bay. 
Plate 5, Fig. 1. 
This singular specimen, which I consider to be a species of 
encrinus, was found by Mr. W. Morgan in August, 1816, in one 
of the upper strata of inclined gritty limestone, forming the east 
end of the ridge of rocks in Woodspring bay, near Whorle, in the 
Bristol Channel. Many fragments and single plates were found at 
the same time, but no other specimen that shewed the general form. 
On examining this figure it will be observed that there are three 
lines in which the plates are set in a regular vertical order on each 
other, and diminishing in size as they ascend. The other plates 
are differently arranged in respect to each other, and fill up the 
intermediate spaces, the number of the intermediate plates in each 
row increasing as they ascend. This figure exhibits about half of 
the cup-like form of the animal, and it appears that there must be 
two more lines of the vertically-arranged plates in the concealed 
portion. The edges of the plates are deeply serrated. The figure 
is about twice the natural size. 
